HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

My work email has been going crazy with this stuff, which was prior to this being posted on ATS. Now New Zealands data has come under scrutiny, and I suspect my organisations climate research centre may also come under review. (I hope we arent involved though)

BTW, for those that dont know, I work for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

reply to post by OzWeatherman


As what? Janitor? Boss? Raindancer? Be more specific... Just because you work for such a group does not mean you are an expert in the field. Could just be a mailroom worker or assistant. If you get my drift.

Title? Credentials?

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

As what? Janitor? Boss? Raindancer? Be more specific... Just because you work for such a group does not mean you are an expert in the field. Could just be a mailroom worker or assistant. If you get my drift.

Title? Credentials?

Sigh

Why, must you always bring this up

I will u2u you my job title and work email to verify it because Im sick of you making these ridiculous accusations.

reply to post by Long Lance

now replace 'planet' with 'god',

Erm... NO!

Human's ARE treating planet Earth as though it can be easily replaceable. I'm not talking of an invisible entity.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

You had not answered them. You did not state it was opinion. You did not state your reason for your opinion.

I had already answered the questions to the extent I saw to be necessary in giving my opinion. You only state that I didn't, because you don't like the answer.

I'm not making any wild claims, yet you persist with this nonsense - all because of a difference of opinion.

It's all irrelevant if you cannot prove data manipulation at the CRU using the emails or alternate sources as evidence. After all - that is the topic of this thread.

Expose it as a fraud, then I will be a sceptic.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

BTW...when there are MILLIONS of hybrids releasing tons, and tons of water vapor which is 95% to 98% WORSE than CO2 as a ghg, are you going to be screaming to the top of your lungs once again?...

Continuing to spout off (pun intended) about water being a major GHG is completely unworthy of any serious argument.

You don't get more greenhouse warming effect from water by dumping more water into the atmosphere. It has a self limiting mechanism called rain. When 'too much' water gets into the atmosphere it comes out again automatically. This system has been (more or less) in balance for 100's of millions of years, and certainly over the last 10,000 years or so anyway.

The only way to get more water to stay in the atmosphere is to... wait for it... warm the atmosphere by some other means! And that is likely to have a net cooling effect anyway because... wait for it...clouds!

So, sure, if you could supersaturate the atmosphere with enough water, and didn't let it form clouds and rain out again, then H2O would do significant damage to the temperature due to the greenhouse effect. But you wouldn't be able to breathe either.

Please go study up on some basic physical chemistry. Your local community college should be able to accommodate you.



[edit on 26/11/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I was just making the point that one cannot simply say they work someplace and expect clout.

Anyone could just come online and say they work for such and such a agency and many would blindly accept it without question.

I am just being thorough.

ANYONE (not just you OZ) who attempts to gain clout/respect or whatever by just saying... "I work here" is opening themselves up to fact-checking and such by suspicious free-thinking truth-seekers.

I am not trying to offend. But do you understand my concern and suspiciousness? It is very easy to lie online and pretend to be someone you are not and that is fine so long as it hurts no one else. But when it misleads others.... therefore... I am being protective of the ATS brethren and trying to keep them safe from false prophets.

I simply suggest, when citing your workplace as a reason people should listen to you and believe you, you must be more specific: because if you 'go there'....go all the way.

[edit on (11/26/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Ok ok, its cool



[edit on 26/11/2009 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by rnaa


Excellently stated RNAA. I was actually in a discussion with Electric Universe earlier and tried to point out some serious things that he had mis-stated as fact. Then when I presented him facts, after he asked for them, he ignored them and continued making error after error.

Ahhh...such is life.

Have a good one.

reply to post by john124


You got a star for that last post. Well handled my friend. Some of the people on this particular thread are excellent at not doing any research and posting their non-stop opinions that they have convinced themselves as fact.

If they're not going to research other sides of the equation on their own, then let them soak in their own ignorance.

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by john124
Already answered those questions ages ago.

It's plausible that some of the emails have been doctored. Enjoy trying to fit emails as "evidence" around your conspiracy - you won't get very far!

It is also possible that you are nothing more than a mindless zombie who the aliens brainwashed for their evil plan to take over the world.... Good luck proving otherwise....

As I said - you haven't got very far, and you never will with that kind of attitude. I've seen you post so many comments on ATS about this issue, much more than the average user such as myself, and almost every post is an attack on climate science or denials! When do you get the time to actually study the science of global warming?!

Do you prefer to fantasise over people's personal emails, rather than be a scientist? as you pretend to know-it-all!

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

Another good post!!! I told him the same thing. He kept trying to refute the evidence in my posts, but, he had never read a single one of them to know whether they were accurate or not. I knew this because of the extremely quick response time that it took him to reply in intervals to the posts that I had made. When I pointed that out to him, he never wrote back.

I don't know. There's a lot of talk about the huge money-making scam that is GW, but aren't there a lot bigger money-making scams out there? War, Oil, drugs...

What's the big deal about GW?

But seriously, does this mean I can drive my Hummer fleet guilt-free? Yeehaa!

Originally posted by john124
I had already answered the questions to the extent I saw to be necessary in giving my opinion. You only state that I didn't, because you don't like the answer.

This is like conversing with a bot program that can only answer with simple deflecting responses. Over and over without ever admitting you lied. Not even admitting you were mistaken. And your right, I don't like the answer when it's a blatant lie.

I'm not making any wild claims, yet you persist with this nonsense - all because of a difference of opinion.

I'll repeat, I'm trying to say this politely, but it's hard when you constantly deflect without giving an honest answer. I'll quote it for you:

Originally posted by john124
It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails

from this thread

That's a pretty wild claim. Why haven't these guys in question showed where emails have been added to so they can clear their name? I mean, if it's obvious, they should have found some by now. I asked you multiple times, how you thought it was obvious they'd been added to.
Your eventual response was...

Already answered those questions ages ago.

You had not. That's called a lie. You can prove me wrong by quoting where you "answered" them. Until you do, I find no need to respond to you further on this matter. It's getting far too tedious (and you must realise that, as EM pointed out, the posts are time recorded). Although any intelligent discussion regarding the rest of my posts would be welcome.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
AHHH YES...the "grow up tactic." That gets used alot by people pretending to be "Above" a situation that they are themselves...participating in. Need I say more???

I would quote some of your more ridiculous comments, but quite frankly, they don't deserve to be posted again. I honestly thought, and I'm not kidding, that someone had hacked into your account to post childish comments to discredit your name. But no, I was wrong. It appears you did it all by yourself.

See ya, I'm off to the beach

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I have been careful not to cast any insulting statements here, but have only provided information and commentary on the topic at hand, or on what seemed to be occurring in this thread. If you, or anyone else, took any of my statements as attempted insults, I am sorry for that, as that was not my intention at all. All along, I have only been trying to follow ATS guidelines in keeping the discussion on topic, and encouraging everyone to avoid childish name-calling and non-productive discussion behaviors.

To show my good faith in this attempt, I took some time to look up the topic of atmospheric O2 supply, and indeed, phytoplankton is responsible for about 70% of atmospheric O2, with the rest coming from terrestrial plants. So, in general, you are quite correct in the importance that phytoplankton plays for the environment, and indeed, a large reduction in the levels of these creatures would have a devastating effect.

I then looked up some publically accessible research on the affects that oil spills have on the bioflora and found one interesting study in particular that gives some very interesting information. It was done on actual bodies of water in Alaska, as opposed to computer-models, which to me makes it much more compelling. I took the time to read through the entire document, so I would ask that you do the same, and then let us discuss the individual points of the conclusion.

Research results for the effects of oil spills

NOTE: The reason I believe discussing this is germane to the "spirit" behind this original post is because the "science" behind AGW is anything but conclusive, and the REAL issue at hand here is that those who are part of the "IN" group of scientists claim that all the science is finished, there is no more room for debate, and that anyone who disagrees will be stonewalled and marginalized. This is the real travesty, and the real reason this post and others like it are important. The people who started this fight were the ones who said there was no more room for discussion... let us be better than they are, shall we?

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Well, I definitely didn't think that someone had hacked into yours. I just automatically assumed that you were a moron.

reply to post by downisreallyup


I like that approach much better. Thank you for taking the time to check things out and to entertain new possibilities. That was the respect that was lacking before in Electric Universe's method and instead of looking at the info, he merely attacked to remain attached to his schema.

Now, I've already provided counter information to much of the article that you presented and it can be found in many of the sources that I've already provided. However, I found a passage in the study that you provided that seemed a bit odd. Here it is: Page 397, or power point slide number 10.

"The phytoplankton algae were studied in great detail in the oil experiment ponds. The results are clear; there was some increase in pri- mary production and a change in species . However the causes are difficult to separate into direct toxicity effects and indirect effects due to the killing of zooplankton . This death of zooplankton will be documented later ; they are extremely sensitive to oil and were eliminated from Pond E ."

Now, in this particular passage on page (397, or powerpoint slide 10), they did an experiment in a pond and noted that the phytoplankton were increasing primary production but beginning to mutate, hence their need to note (a change in species). They also didn't specify what kind of a "change" that they were referring to. What if the "change" that they are talking about is an inability to produce oxygen? Or, what if the amount of oxygen that they produce is lessened considerably? They also noted that, in this pond, zooplankton (a close relative to phytoplankton) were very sensitive to oil and were eliminated from pond E (and a side note: They only took one measurement. Several measurements are needed in order to note toxicity trends) The scientists also attribute the phytoplankton's success in this pond to the elimination of the competing zooplankton, therefore the addition of the oil (if not in toxic amounts) could actually serve as a boost to the phytoplanton's ecosystem.

Now, according to page (398-399) the amount of oil spill is pivotal for determining long-term damage. This actually supports my above statement. Here is that quote:

"The reduction in primary productivity is directly proportional to the amount of oil added. Federle et al. (1979) found that when various
Oil Spill Effects 399
quantities of oil were shaken with Pond C water, the short-term productivity was reduced by 50% (by 15 μl oil liter') and stopped
completely by 30 μl.Oil layered on top of experimental vessels and not shaken was only half as toxic. Thus, the water-soluble fraction of the oil is inhibitory to the algae."

Now, page 406 tells some interesting information. It specifically addresses how the photosynthesis (the ability for algae to produce oxygen as a byproduct of feeding and production) of phytoplankton is affected by the introduction of THE WATER SOLUBLE FRACTION OF OIL (keep that in mind...what is most dependent here is the water solubility of the oil...if there are billions of gallons of oil within an area, water will lose solubility or absorption which makes it far more toxic...hence, oil that sits on top of water becomes a major concern on the ecology of an environment) Here is the quote on page 406 of their controlled experiment within the pond.

The effect of oil on benthic algae was only briefly studied ; 1 year after the spill the photosynthesis in Pond E was 50% that of a control pond .In contrast, the phytoplankton algae were intensively studied and we found that the water-soluble fractionof the oil strongly reduced photosynthesis for several days. The amount of algae, however, did not change as a result of the spill and productivity reached normal levels within several months .
The added oil drastically changed the species composition of the planktonic algae in both the ponds and in experimental chambers .This change, a rapid replacement of the cryptophyte Rhodomonas by the chrytophyte Uroglena, continued for 6 years. It is likely that the Rhodomonas are eliminated because the zooplankton are killed; experimental removal of the zooplankton caused the same elimination.It is not known whether the algae responded to a release of grazing pressure or to a cessation of the zooplankton's recycling of nutrients.

You'll have to forgive me here, some of this copy and paste stuff went sour. Now note that in the second paragraph from above, they go on to say that additional oil began to mutate the composition of the planktonic algae. I can't see this as being a good side-effect to the introduction of oil. Now, imagine this when you consider hundreds upon thousands, and even up to the billions of barrels of oil that has devastated areas.

You see, the worst case scenario isn't necessarily that the phytoplankton dies (well, it is for the phytoplankton,) but, the worst case scenario is that they stop producing oxygen, either as a result of death, or some outside influence. According to the study that you provided, there was a 50% decrease in the phytoplankton's ability to photosynthesize after the introduction of oil into the environment. Could you image a 50% decrease of the world's supply of oxygen and what would actually occur as a result?

By the way, the studies that I have already provided had much of this information in it.

Anyway...I look forward to hearing from you. And I do appreciate the more solid approach that you made.


[edit on 27-11-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
My work email has been going crazy with this stuff, which was prior to this being posted on ATS. Now New Zealands data has come under scrutiny, and I suspect my organisations climate research centre may also come under review. (I hope we arent involved though)

BTW, for those that dont know, I work for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Care to take a leak?

If your work is engaged in it then the only thing to do is right the wrong, expose the perpetrators and reveal the earth's icy hot icy hot icy and then gorey past in a nice long documentary produced by your climate science division.

On another note...

There's an opportunity here and it's only yet a hairline crack in the hoover dam. Expect many more leaks regarding the business practices of the NWO wannabees in the coming days.

It's over. Now back to reality, truth and a much calmer populous. I know I've had tonnes of weight lifted from my shoulders. Happy as a heroin addict in Afghanistan!!!

This stop, climate-gate, next stop, golden-gate. Wait till that stack blows!~

Originally posted by john124

Erm... NO!

Human's ARE treating planet Earth as though it can be easily replaceable. I'm not talking of an invisible entity.

by the same token, his mother 'gave life' to him, so the way you're talking about Earth is not indicative of the rock, but more in abstract terms. a deity need not be invisible either, it's just a convenient excuse by the major religions, but i'm digressing.

================================

since any information posted here is only dissected in terms of usefulness in the debate by certain people here i'm completely unwilling to acknowledge that their pleas for a better treatment of the ecosystem are genuine. ie. if it's 'save the aliens' was next year's big fad, they all be swarming over this new (and improved?) urgent cause™


PS: i'd like warn everyone of the dangers of jumping to premature conclusions. i've seen enough posts claiming cooling trends from the leaked files, which is an easily avoided mistake: don't give the material any more credit than it deserves, it is indicative of the conduct within these institutions, but hopelessly unreliable otherwise. whatever it shows cannot be trusted!

This lad discusses the "HARRY_READ_ME" file.

With his own views and interpretation on it

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I'm just going to ignore your previous post, as it's just a continuation of the previously mentioned childish remarks.

But I'm impressed by your most recent post (I'll even give it a star ) which is a much better presentation of your stance.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
You do know that PHYTOPLANKTON provides most of the earth's oxygen...RIGHT???) to counterbalance the excessive CARBON MONOXIDE content due to EMISSIONS, then there is an inherent PROBLEM to how the earth's heating, or cooling system will respond.

Do you mean Carbon Dioxide? Because carbon monoxide, has a much shorter atmospheric life span, and in fact, atmospheric levels have recently been declining, and have since leveled off.

the average atmospheric lifetime of carbon monoxide can be calculated to be about 2 months, with a range between 1 and 4 months, which reflects the uncertainty in the annual emissions of carbon monoxide
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More recent reports of carbon monoxide measurements in air samples show that from 1988 to 1993, global carbon monoxide concentrations started to decline rapidly. Novelli et al. (1994) collected air samples from 27 locations between 71 °N and 41 °S about once every 3 weeks from a ship during the period June 1990 to June 1993. In the northern latitudes, carbon monoxide concentrations decreased at a spatially and temporally average rate of 8.4 ± 1.0 µg/m3 (7.3 ± 0.9 ppb) per year (6.1% per year). In the southern latitudes, carbon monoxide concentrations decreased at a rate of 4.8 ± 0.6 µg/m3 (4.2 ± 0.5 ppb) per year (7.0% per year). Khalil & Rasmussen (1994) reported a slightly smaller decline in global carbon monoxide concentrations of 2.6 ± 0.8% per year during the period from 1988 to 1992. The rate of decrease reported by Khalil & Rasmussen (1994) was particularly rapid in the southern hemisphere. The authors hypothesize that this decline may reflect a reduction in tropical biomass burning.

Since 1993, the downward trend in global carbon monoxide concentrations has levelled off, and it is not clear if carbon monoxide will continue to decline or increase

source

I'm also curious about this:

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
According to the study that you provided, there was a 50% decrease in the phytoplankton's ability to photosynthesize after the introduction of oil into the environment. Could you image a 50% decrease of the world's supply of oxygen and what would actually occur as a result?

Are you hypothesizing that there is an oil spill over the entire ocean?

No one here is saying that oil spills aren't an ecological disaster. But showing that oxygen production decreases in the localised areas of a spill is a far stretch from saying it will cause global warming.

Do you really think oil spills, which cover a minute area of the ocean, are having any measurable effect on global warming? I'm yet to see any evidence of that. But if you could provide the relevant information, that would be wonderful.